M/S. Indorama INDIA Private Limited (Formerly, Irc Agrochemical Private Limited) vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Indorama India Private Limited, challenged an order dated April 26, 2024, by the appellate authority which rejected a refund sanction order dated February 24, 2023. The petitioner had applied for a refund of Rs. 72,31,368/- for Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on the ocean freight component for imports between June 1, 2018, and June 30, 2018, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India –Vs- M/s. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The refund sanctioning authority initially allowed the refund. However, the department appealed this decision. The appellate authority's order noted that the refund sanctioning authority had not analyzed whether the shipping lines involved were foreign or Indian, and that the Bill of Lading provided by the petitioner to evidence the engagement of a foreign shipping line was illegible.
Held
The Court held that in the given facts, the petitioner should be provided an opportunity to present a legible copy of the Bill of Lading. The reasoning was that the case should be considered afresh on its merits, and the illegibility of the document was preventing a proper examination. The Court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's case, allowing them to produce a legible Bill of Lading and any other necessary documents. The appellate authority was instructed to conclude these proceedings within one month. The ratio decidendi is that procedural defects, such as illegible documentation, should not preclude a substantive consideration of a refund claim if the defect can be rectified, and the matter warrants a fresh examination on merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the refund sanction order without considering the petitioner's submission regarding the engagement of a foreign shipping line, particularly when the illegibility of the Bill of Lading was the primary reason for rejection? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 107 and Section 64 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are prepared to produce a legible copy of the Bill of Lading before the appellate authority for consideration, implying that the illegibility should not be a final bar to the refund. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state beyond what is reflected in the appellate authority's order, which highlighted the illegibility of the Bill of Lading and the lack of analysis by the refund sanctioning authority regarding the nature of the shipping lines.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 64
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026 ct no. 10 Sl. 07 AGM WPA 18024 of 2024 M/s. Indorama India Private Limited (Formerly, IRC Agrochemical Private Limited.) -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Avra Mazumder. Ms. Alisha Das. Ms. Rupomita Ghosh. Mr. Debdut Banerjee. …for the petitioner. Ms. Manasi Mukherjee. Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee. … for the CGST. Mr. Tanay Chakraborty. Mr. Saptok Sanyal. … for the State.
The petitioner challenges an order of the appellate authority dated April 26, 2024, passed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by which the appellate authority rejected a refund sanction order dated February 24, 2023, passed under Section 64 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. It appears that the petitioner submitted a refund application in the prescribed form GST-RED-01 dated December 28, 2022, for a refund of Rs. 72,31,368/- of Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on the ocean freight component for imports between June 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018
following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India –Vs- M/s. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., reported at 2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 257 (SC).
The refund sanctioning authority, by an order dated February 24, 2023, allowed the refund. The department, however, preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 4. The essential ground on which the appeal was allowed is apparent from paragraph 5.4.4 of the order of the appellate authority. The said para 5.4.4. is quoted below: “ 5.4.4 However, agreeing with the review of the Reviewing Authority I find that RSA has neither made any analysis nor given any findings as to whether the Shipping Lanes involved in this case were Foreign Shipping Lines or Indian Shipping Lines. The respondent in their reply dated 16.10.2023 stated that in the instant case, foreign shipping line was engaged by the foreign supplier. And according to them to evident the said fact they enclosed bill of lading wherein in the details of the shipping line involved is clearly mentioned. But that enclosed bill is not legible at all to correlate and substantiate the claim of the respondent.”
Mr. Mazumder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is prepared to produce a legible copy of the Bill of Lading before the appellate authority for consideration. 2
This court is of the view that, in the facts of the case, the petitioner should be provided with such an opportunity so that the case can be considered afresh on merits.
In view of the aforesaid, I direct the appellate authority to consider the case of the petitioner, giving an opportunity to produce a legible copy of the Bill of Lading and any other documents required for consideration by the appellate authority in deciding the appeal.
The appellate authority shall conclude the proceedings in terms of this order within one month from the date.
Accordingly, WPA 18024 of 2024 is disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. (Smita Das De, J.)
3
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.